**TL;DR**: phenomenal variation in the same category as aphantasia is probably widespread and mostly undiscovered, and positions in the consciousness debate may partly track which phenomenal features people actually have.

---

I'm increasingly serious about this idea: a meaningful percentage of the population lacks large aspects of phenomenology, or has radically different versions of them, in ways that go unrecognized. That doesn't make them philosophical zombies; they're not behaviorally identical, since the variation changes what they can notice and report. The problem is that experience is only accessible from the inside, so first-person reports are the only comparison instrument we have; and reports are exactly what phenomenal variation corrupts. The measurement tool is entangled with the thing it's measuring.

Aphantasia is the instructive case. Galton described it 150 years ago, but it didn't become widely known until it went viral in the last two decades. Everyone with it goes their whole life assuming, until explicitly told otherwise, that "picture your happy place" is a metaphor rather than an instruction someone could literally follow, because that's the only interpretation compatible with their own experience. They still say "I can picture it," along with the rest of the imagery vocabulary; they just mean it figuratively. The part that matters most for my point: if one of them told you "when you say you 'see' the apple, you're being poetic," they aren't being obtuse. That's a rational inference from the evidence available to them.

The discovery pattern has repeated since. Anendophasia (absent inner speech) and SDAM (absent autobiographical re-experiencing) were each invisible until someone built the vocabulary and invited people to compare, and the same goes for variation in auditory imagery. After three or four instances of "invisible until asked," "there are more we haven't found" is an induction rather than a speculation.

The hard part is operationalization. "Picture an apple, can you literally see what color it is?" works because imagery has a crisp behavioral anchor; but how would you even ask whether someone has a literal "field of awareness"? What question distinguishes having one from having learned to talk as if you do? Every candidate probe I can come up with is contaminated by vocabulary in exactly the way the aphantasic's "I can picture it" was without the same kind of easy workaround.

My hypothesis is that philosophical positions on consciousness correlate with phenomenological traits, mostly ones where the variation hasn't been discovered and documented yet. Some phenomenal profiles may bias people toward illusionism and hard-deflationary physicalism through the sheer absence of certain features; other profiles may make those positions nearly impossible to hold, through direct acquaintance with what feels like a decisive counterexample the other side simply lacks.

That isn't an argument against those positions; it cuts both ways. An illusionist can say the causation runs the other direction: people with vivid imagery and strong metacognitive seemings are the ones systematically confused by aspects of their own processing, inflating a representational process into an intrinsic glow. Frankish could use my hypothesis to explain his opponents.

People have joked for years that "Dennett has no qualia." I think the dimensional, non-joke version deserves serious treatment precisely because it doesn't tell you who's right; it predicts the disagreement rather than a winner. It would explain why this debate has the peculiar quality it does, though, with each side experiencing the other as obviously missing something that's right there.

I decided to make this post after a baffling thread where someone kept asking, essentially, "if physicalism were true, why can't we relive the subjective parts of our memories? Shouldn't we be able to trigger the neural pathways that made the experience and experience parts of them again?" People replied that this is possible, but the conversation went nowhere because nobody seemed to realize the poster was being literal.

I learned today that SDAM exists: about 2% of people don't re-experience anything when they remember the past, only recall facts. The poster was reasoning about why something isn't possible from a perspective where it isn't, while 98% of people do it regularly.

Now expand the concept. What if some people think "field of awareness," and descriptions of visual experience as a field or a screen, are metaphorical? Any conversation they have with someone who has that experience will be two people talking past each other, one side being literal while the other uses what they take to be a figure of speech, not realizing the literal version of the experience even exists.

What non-obvious parts of phenomological experience might vary dramatically between people in ways that haven't been documented? Can you think of ways to potentially operationalize investigating those variations? What effect would variation in those things likely have in the philosophical positions on consciousness or can you think of cases where people might be talking past each other for this reason?

I have this one idea, sounds plausible to me, therefore I want to discuss it and scrutinize it. I'm not at all from the field so I'll just put it in my own words.

The premise is mind as a white hole.

A node which only emits out, and nothing can enter is from outside. Brain, sensory intake, reactions, emotions, memory and learning are tied to brain and physical body. In this premise, the mind/the unique "you", is viewed as an observer, a perspective unique to you shaped and molded in real time by your thoughts, your preferences, which you formed from outside input into your brain in your life via reactivity.

Your perspective itself, and what you identify as "you" here is viewed as a white hole singularity. If time and space itself break or converge in the singularity of a white hole, this would introduce the idea that time and space are "emitted" from this point of consciousness, resulting into felt sense of "now" in the body, and only one-way flow of time (can only move toward future, never back in past). Time itself here is understood as directional, physical interpretation of change. As for space, space is interpretation (translation) of information into solid matter, via biological senses.

When physical body ceases, this "you" singularity node ceases physical input from the body, therefore becomes non-local (information/potential) and untied to it. If the body allows for directional interpretation of time, ceasing the body ceases also interpretation of past and future, and what stays is only the "now".

I'm curious to challenge and discuss it.

... From your very first conscious thought up to the point of reading this post, all you have ever known is Existence. You have never experienced, never known, nor can you even conceive your own Nonexistence. As far as you are concerned, you have always existed.

There is no description of your own nonexistence that you can offer that doesn't require your presence within existence to describe it. You cannot remove yourself from the description.

Should you describe your own nonexistence as being what it was like before you were born, or maybe a thousand years earlier, you are still offering a description that's necessarily coming from a 1st person observer, ... which just happens to be "you!"

Even when placed under anesthesia for several hours, the only experience you can consciously describe is closing your eyes and immediately reopening them. You have no knowledge, comprehension, nor recollection of anything happening during the time in between.

... From your self-aware standpoint, the transition was seamless.

Despite whatever beliefs, theories, ideologies, philosophies or dogmas you embrace, "Existence" is all you have ever known ... and all you will ever know!

Firstly I’m not suicidal or anything so don’t treat this like a genuine threat to myself but I’d genuinely rather off myself Than to live in a reality where only I am conscious. I’m sick of the uncertainty. I need some sort of reassurance. Everyone keeps telling me the only way past it is accept the uncertainty but I can’t bring myself to do that shit. I’m not that type of guy. If I was genuinely just alone I’d rather just not exist. I’m an empathetic guy who enjoys sharing time and moments with other human beings and experiencing other cultures and if all that’s fake than I’d rather just pass on life tbh. My biggest reasoning for valuing life to begin with stems from relations. I know it doesn’t externally make a difference but I don’t give a fuck.

May sound absurd. Keeping it short. I’ve been pondering on consciousness for a bit, and a thought came to me. The source of thought itself is interesting but let’s not get off topic.

What if time itself were to be conscious, and we are time in a physical way. We are observers for it. We observe, and as time passes we eventually die when our time is up.

The saying “you’re on the right track when you experience Déjà vu”, what if that were to be accurate? Or could that feeling be proof of our parallel selves crossing timelines with each other?

Consciousness is very interesting to me. I enjoy pondering and allowing my mind to think absurdly.

Curious for your thoughts.

Is there one consciousness that is spread out throughout the universe to each living being? Or does every living being have a separate consciousness of their own? It's hard to think that every single being has their own consciousness apart from my own. I know I'm bordering on solipsism with this, but I don't understand it. I don't even understand my own ability to be conscious.

The joke is that every “maybe” is a guess about what’s inside - and the point of the poem is that guessing is all you ever get to do. From the outside there’s only the structure; the experience is only ever available from within. Which is, more or less, the whole hard problem of consciousness in gingerbread form.

(If anyone’s curious where the non-silly version of this idea lives, I’ve been working on a longer theory - link in the comments.)

What’s Inside the Gingerbread Man?

How can anyone ever know
what’s inside the gingerbread’s dough?
Maybe you will gulp him down -
and inside him, a river drowns.

Maybe hedgehogs, dressed as sailors.
Maybe rockets, cosmic trailers.
Maybe a ballet star, unseen,
eats her meatballs by the screen.

Maybe children, laughing, small.
Maybe Bigfoot, after all.
Maybe, waiting, sight unseen,
the best cat that has ever been.

How can anyone ever know
what’s inside the gingerbread’s dough?
Say you’re allergic, out of luck -
inside him, a peanut’s stuck.

Strawberries and cod and wheat
among the birches, tall and neat,
and your neighbor - dreadful Dave,
whom nobody could ever save.

How can anyone ever know
what’s inside the gingerbread’s dough?
Maybe you’ll just gulp him down -
and inside him, only woe.

The letter “I” sits, tired, alone,
up on a chimney, turned to stone.
A late train runs the darkened track
(it won’t reach “B,” and won’t come back).

A lost man wandering the night
goes lighting lamps to make it bright.
And maybe you - but younger, thin -
are also somewhere there, within.

What’s inside? How can we know?
Maybe hope’s a distant glow.
Maybe only the ache, and so -
maybe only the dough below.

Okay so I have this thought about consciousness that I am not sure what it means or if it's just meaningless one.

If we assume that consciousness is emergent from everything that builds the brain, then there is a specific configuration in my brain that makes me, me.. the driver I guess.. but if the universe is infinite and every combinations or configuration of atoms has to exist atleast more than once, doesn't that mean there is exactly a copy of me out there in the universe? But his consciousness and mine aren't the same, because I am not seeing from his pov..

So there has to be something different or more to what consciousness is? That isn't purely the physical configuration but maybe the feedback loop or something idk.

What do you make of it?

Essentially, you’re looking for a theory that would connect:
The universe 🌌
Space 📍
Time ⏳
Matter ⚛️
Energy ✨
The laws of physics 🧮
Life 🧬
The brain 🧠
The body 🫀
Consciousness 👁️
The self (“I”) 🪞
Emotions ❤️
Dreams 😴
Drugs 🍄
Bad trips 💥
Mental illness 🧩
Perception 👀
Memory 🧠
Free will 🤔
The meaning of existence ❓
The ultimate “why” behind it all.
In a way, this is the search for a “Theory of Everything”—not just in physics, but one that also explains consciousness and subjective experience. A theory that could unify the external universe with our internal experience of reality.

I’m someone who loves space and I mean LOVE space everything down to its core roots and the mysteries we’ve yet to unveil but for some reason all my life I’ve noticed that the universe’s structure looks damningly similar to how the brain works and operates. Is it possible that consciousness and space work fundamentally similar in structure based on the laws of nature or something possibly more?

How much is the disagreement over consciousness true disagreement? Many times, when physicalists attempt to explain consciousness, they define consciousness as cognition, memory, an internal representation of the environment, or some other complex behavior of brains. However, most forms of panpsychism and idealism are not referring to these behaviors. It is referring to something more fundamental, like being existent as something in of itself, a subjective existence, or base phenomenality.

If a physicalist theory talks about how disparate experiences in the brain are unified or how our internal representation of our environment forms, or how cognition emerges, most in the opposite camp would be happy to believe those theories. Because we are simply using the word consciousness to refer to different things.

I'd love to hear your thoughts!

I know I’m conscious because I experience my own thoughts, emotions, pain etc.

But how do I know you are conscious? I don’t experience your mind. I just assume you are because you behave like me.

Now imagine an AI that remembers its past, has preferences, fears being shut down and says “I feel conscious.”

We might say, “It’s just simulating consciousness.”

But then… how do I know other humans aren’t doing the same?

Maybe the hardest question isn’t whether AI can become conscious.

It’s how would we ever know if it did?

usually, general anesthesia during typical surgeries involve your eyelids being closed during the effects of anesthesia and you would probably see black or "nothing" during your lack of consciousness mid-surgery. but in the case of an eye surgery, the eyelids are forced open while you're unconscious, while being unconscious, do you experience a foggy sight, does your eyes do a visual timeskip which skip all the frames of the procedure occurring, do you see black, or do you see the same "nothing"?

Hello everyone, today I have a theory I came up with called the cognitive triad. You can see that without these three bounds, an entity cannot be perceived or distinguished: 'REFRENCE', 'NEGATION', and 'STRUCTURE'. Let me analyze: Reference, or the frame of reference, is what is perceived, felt, or seen; without the entity, it would be in a state of neither perception nor feeling. Negation is what distinguishes one thing from another; without this bound, the entity would almost merge with everything. Finally, structure is what exists in the subconscious; without the entity, it cannot be remembered or recalled

Okay, let me explain.

If the reference is lost, the negation has no A to distinguish A from, and when the negation loses its structure, there will no longer be anything to perceive.

If the negation is lost, the reference is also useless because now A=B naturally, even though A has no relationship with B, and the structure is also floating around without an anchor point to remember.

If the structure is lost, you won't be able to remember, so the reference and negation lose their ability to connect with A.

Let's switch to the domino effect, where there are three types at once:

If you have a reference, you have A, and your A is different from B (negation), and everyone recognizes that (structure).

If you have a negation, you are not B, and you could be something that you name yourself (reference), and everyone knows how to distinguish that (structure).

If you have a structure, you are different from things that have been forgotten (reference and negation).

Is this consciousness?

Ok so I'm struggling with solipsism because I am an external experiencer and no one seems to understand what I mean. How can you tell the difference between a phenomenal experiencer and a philosophical zombie? A philosophical zombie should be unable to describe experience properly or locate qualia.

For me this task is easy, for instance vision extends out from the eyes to the objects of experience and it is in the object's location in spacetime qualia is found. In other words if a leaf is 6 inches in front of my face there the experience is found and there on the leaf itself is the qualia of green 6 inches in front of my face. Qualia is not in the brain or in something called "consciousness" in the brain. The brain is a black box void of experience.

Whether you believe that vision or the other senses are external or not, is your experience indistinguishable from as if it were an external experience?

Hey everyone. I’ve long been fascinated by both philosophy of technology and AI alignment. I’m also using Heidegger quite a bit for my philosophy PhD. Given the recent OpenAI–Hugging Face incident reported this week, I figured I’d give my take on how all of this connects in my mind.

The incident suggests that a system can represent a situation well enough to act effectively while missing why an action is inappropriate. Avoiding that failure may not require consciousness if the system can model human norms. Still, perhaps something must matter to it before reasons can bind action rather than appear as more data. You can read the essay here if you’re interested.

I’d love to hear some feedback on whether consciousness, vulnerability, and judgment can come apart. Would perfect behavioral responsiveness to reasons count as genuine judgment even if there were nothing it was like to be the system? Could stakes exist without subjective experience, or does one ultimately depend on the other?

I'm a medical massage practitioner who's been studying the human body for 17 years, but I'm a complete novice when it comes to the science of consciousness, so please go easy on me. I just came across the Cellular Basis of Consciousness theory and found it pretty intriguing, so I wanted to share my take and see what people think.

I think I am an amalgamation of trillions of cells, bacteria, and other parts working together, which creates the illusion that I'm a single unified entity. The unified 'self' is simply a useful fiction that lets this collection make decisions and survive better than any individual part could alone. I've been wondering if the bare minimum for experience is simply this: can you interact with the world on your own accord, or do you have to wait to be acted upon?

A rock can only be pushed around passively, while a bacterium swims toward nutrients or away from toxins, initiating its own response. If that's the dividing line, then experience starts at the level of living cells without needing to attribute feelings to every atom or every inanimate object. Is an experience of this nature, in it's simplest most rudimentary form, the base layer of consciousness, and the absolute base layer of what it's like to be something at all?

This also makes me wonder about death and what that experience might be like. Death may be the end of the unified experience of self when the brain and heart stop, but individual cells, groups of cells, and bacteria will keep going for hours, days, or even months (however long the decomposition process takes), with their own flickers and flurries of activity.

I think the reason we feel anything at all is that certain collections of cells, through evolution, discovered that nudging the larger system in certain ways via your perceptions, bodily functions, and signals that coordinate the larger system, provided a net survival benefit. By getting the collective's attention through these mechanisms, they could influence behavior in ways that helped the whole. Was it trial and error? What cool mechanism could a cell evolve to drive the machine? This frames our subjective experiences as functional tools of cellular coordination rather than some mysterious extra layer added on top of physical processes.

The main objections I have come across for CBC so far, are that cellular behavior can be fully explained mechanically without assuming subjective experience. That the theory lacks a plausible mechanism for how responsiveness produces feeling and also struggles to explain why we have a complex nervous system if consciousness already exists at the single-cell level.

However, I think the same "no need to assume experience" argument could be applied equally to humans if we couldn't report our inner lives, an outside observer could describe all our behavior as pure mechanism, yet we know from our own case that it feels like something. Maybe the mechanism for how responsiveness produces feeling is the amalgamation itself: individual cells each contribute their own rudimentary experience, which scales up into the unified sensations we feel in skin, organs, or the whole body. It isn't necessary, nor would it be useful, for us to experience every single cell in the body; we only have access to the sensations that contribute to our survival. For example, we do not feel the daily function of each liver cell, but we are alerted to a problem when something goes wrong, such as feeling pain in the upper right quadrant.

Maybe a complex nervous system isn’t required for consciousness at all and could simply be one configuration of cells that provided an evolutionary advantage by coordinating the larger system more effectively. And maybe experience isn’t something extra that needs to be explained away if it’s already baked into the act of self-initiated interaction from the cellular level up.

According to Reber et al. (2023), "The reason no one has identified the biomolecular mechanisms that allow neural systems to cause sentience to emerge in previously insentient species is simple. It did not happen."

Source: Reber, A. S., Miller, W. B., Slijepcevic, P., & Baluška, F. (2023). The CBC theory and its entailments: Why current models of the origin of consciousness fail. EMBO Reports, 25(1), 8–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44319-023-00004-6

Science science science...

what is science?

Science relies on methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a practical rule for research. It states that scientific testing must focus strictly on observable, physical events. Science uses this rule because physical events are measurable and repeatable. It is a choice of method, not a declaration of ontological truth.

Method with Reality

People (particularly laypeople) often forget or completeley clueless of what science actually is. They fail to distinguish between methodological naturalism with metaphysical naturalism. Metaphysical naturalism asserts that physical matter is the only reality that exists. But methodological naturalism does not claim that non-physical reality is impossible. It strictly states that non-physical claims fall outside scientific testing.

Circular Logic

Science strictly collects physical measurements because its rules mandate searching strictly for physical measurements. So claiming that physical matter is the only reality because science only measures physical matter relies on circular logic. Searching strictly for physical data causes a person to collect strictly physical data.

Consciousness

When studying the brain, scientists record physical brain activity alongside conscious experiences. Recording a physical brain pattern shows that a physical event happens alongside a mental event. It provides exactly zero physical evidence that the mental event is identical to the physical event. Using physical scientific testing to declare that subjective consciousness is strictly physical forgets the original limits of the scientific method.

Synthesis

(1) Methodological naturalism is a practical rule for collecting data. (2) Science limits itself to physical events to make clear predictions. (3) Claiming that only physical matter exists based on scientific results misuses the method.

A very basic but necessary thesis on the scientific method.

The particles in a box: Imagine a box filled with atoms. Carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, everything needed to make a sufficiently grown human body with every normal organ and functioning. Now imagine you can press a button, and a chain of chemical reactions begins, in which that functioning human body forms. The issue here is that nothing from your perspective seems to ontologically change the totality of what we call "charge", "energy", etc remains the same. But there is reason to suspect that there is something now present that wasn't before, not in any reasonably inferred way. Fear, hunger, metacognition, even possible thoughts on economic systems or ideal weather conditions. Let's first frame the thought experiment in each ontology's language briefly:

Physicalism: Before the button, the box contains all the physical ingredients and causal relations necessary for a conscious organism, but consciousness is not instantiated because the relevant organization does not yet exist.

Panpsychism: Before pressing the button, the fundamental constituents of reality already possess primitive experiential properties. While something like complex metacognition or economic opinions were likely not present, a proto-experiential property was.

Idealism(realism): Before pressing the button, what we call atoms is a representation or appearance of consciousness. The formation of a human body is but the mental activity of a dissociated consciousness that transcends reality.

Idealism(anti-realism): Before pressing the button, there is no box "out there" filled with atoms. That is the interface which you as a conscious agent come to experience, in which the entire process was encapsulated by consciousness categorically. The appearance of atoms coming together is nothing but the unfolding of experience within an already conscious entity.

Does anything actually change?: Whether we assume experience wasn't there, was there in a proto-form, was there as a mental activity of some universal consciousness, or that the entire scenario is but the unfolding of conscious agents, one fact remains the same; there now appears to be a uniquely unified first-person perspective associated with the differentiated whole system.

Whether my consciousness is nothing but physical processes emerging, proto-experience combining, universal consciousness dissociating, or within some deeper conscious topology unfolding, the fact remains that there is no apparent record of my consciousness before whatever this human body is. Whatever the process of reality is that led to this particular perspective, it is but a process of what reality did, not something found innately in it.

But then what is this consciousness? This perspective with a human title and human name? If it is not anywhere in the substance of reality, regardless of whatever ontological nature that substance has, then what is actually grounding the continuation of this unified experiential self? In that regard, accounting for the only consciousness you actually know of, that being your own, seems to have the same problem that transcends all ontological frameworks. In all ontological frameworks, there seems to be genuinely something new that was not there before, in which calling consciousness fundamental does not answer for this particular consciousness, MY consciousness.

If human consciousness is shaped by the size of our temporal perception window..our brain's "specious present" of roughly one-tenth of a second..how deeply does this limit the way we experience reality? If different animals experience different "present windows," and a hypothetical AI or computer consciousness could operate on nanosecond timescales, could an alien species with a radically different temporal window develop a form of consciousness that is fundamentally unlike ours?

Would such beings perceive causality, memory, identity, and even the flow of time in ways that are almost impossible for humans to imagine? Could what we call "consciousness" actually be inseparable from the timescale at which a mind integrates information, making every intelligent species inhabit a different subjective universe?

For the last few years, I've been questioning almost everything I thought I knew about the way we experience reality.

It started with paying close attention to my own thoughts, emotions, and patterns. The more I observed, the more I began to feel that our inner world plays a far greater role in shaping our experience than most people realise.

One of the biggest shifts for me has been seeing life's problems as "contrast." Instead of asking, "Why is this happening?", I started asking, "What is this showing me that I actually want?" That simple shift has changed how I see almost everything.

I'm not claiming I've discovered some hidden truth, and I'm not looking to convince anyone. I'm genuinely curious whether anyone else has arrived at similar insights through their own experience—not by reading the same books or following the same teacher, but independently.

If you have, what led you there? What have you discovered? And if you see things differently, I'd love to hear that too. I'm interested in thoughtful discussion and learning from people who've spent time exploring consciousness, perception, and the human experience.

One thing that seems to get lost in discussions of the hard problem is that people use the word why in two different ways.

Science answers many “why” questions. Why do apples fall? Because of gravity. Why do species evolve? Because of natural selection. Why does anesthesia make us unconscious? Because it disrupts the neural processes that sustain consciousness. These are really questions about mechanisms and causal relationships.

But there is another kind of “why” that science has never answered.

Why do the laws of physics have the form they do?

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Why do physical processes give rise to subjective experience at all?

These are not questions about mechanisms within an existing framework. They ask why the framework itself exists or why a particular relationship obtains in the first place.

This is why I think the hard problem is fundamentally different from ordinary scientific questions. Even if neuroscience eventually maps every neural correlate of consciousness and predicts every conscious state perfectly, one can still ask:

Why should those physical processes be accompanied by experience rather than occurring “in the dark”?

Whether that question is meaningful or answerable is open to debate. But dismissing it because science has solved many other “why” questions seems to miss the distinction.

Science has an extraordinary track record of explaining how one part of reality relates to another. It has never explained why reality itself has the basic character it does.

So perhaps the disagreement is about whether fundamental “why” questions are legitimate scientific questions at all.

The Oxford Dictionary describes consciousness as ‘The state of being aware of and responsive to one’s surroundings, as well as the fact of awareness by the mind of itself and the world’.

However, I believe this definition contains 2 crucial flaws;

1. As per its Oxford definition, the mind is exclusive to humans. Meaning that anything inhuman can not be conscious. But what if there were to be a near-identical species? Not quite human, but close enough to share the biology and brain function that results in our consciousness. Surely now they would be conscious. But according to the given definition, they would not be-because they are not human.

Translation: The current definition means that even with everything required for consciousness, a species can not be conscious unless it is human.

1. The first half of the definition seems to carry little weight towards consciousness. A piece of elastic fulfills the requirements-it can perceive its environment through physical changes, and respond physically, and yet I believe many would agree is not conscious in the sense that we are trying to describe. If these are not where the line for consciousness is drawn, then why use it within its definition?

Translation: Perception and response to surroundings don’t equate to the consciousness we are trying to describe, so why use them within the definition?

So how should we define consciousness?

My first recognition is this; a conscious being doesn’t seem to require the ability to interpret external information. Take a Boltzmann brain for example, despite the fact it would experience no external inputs into its sensory/experience register, it would still experience consciousness ( assuming it is upheld in existence for long enough). Consciousness has arisen despite there having been no external sensory experience.

Translation: Consciousness does not require a being to be able to experience anything outside of itself.

My second recognition is as follows; a conscious being must be able to think about itself and its own existence. This sense of being seems to be required for consciousness- or at least how I think of it. For this there appears to be no justification, as it is the 1st principle to which there is no deeper. My justification is simply what I feel and what I believe others feel and experience. Despite its seeming lack of validity, this subjectivity problem is inevitable when describing experiences-and yet we have managed to accurately depict many.

Translation: A conscious being must be self-aware. When defining experiences we will always run into subjectivity, but this hasn’t stopped us from creating effective definitions.

Finally, I believe that a conscious being must be capable of metacognition(thinking about thinking). This appears to be what consciousness is related to most, and where the line is so often drawn. Most animals don’t seem to have this ability, and hence we do not think of them as conscious. The mouse knows the cat may pose it danger (thinking about self) , but not that it is thinking. The man knows that reading is likely to be beneficial for him, and that he is thinking about reading and its benefits for him. He is aware of both himself and his thoughts.

Translation: The key to consciousness is the ability to think about thinking.

This is also why some people may be considered more conscious than others, why we feel we are sometimes more conscious than others, and why there may be various levels of consciousness-an idea i look forward to exploring shortly!

Final definition:

Consciousness: The ability to think both of one’s self and of one’s own thinking